The argument for transitioning to renewables seems stronger than ever – and yet, attacks mount on the carbon price scheme that underpins the EU’s success at cutting pollution
True, but with known reserves and no material recycling we have 70 years of material at current rate. If we add undiscovered deposits we have more or less 200 years. If we add ocean deposits we have 60000 years. If we reprocess the uranium in breeder reactors (we have them already built in Russia, China, India) we can potentially arrive at 5 millions year of reserves. Given we are already discussing thorium rectors, this time frame makes uranium not a problem really.
Solar relies on China who manufactures using coal, and puts us in the same predicament. It also requires storage, which also relies on China. Nuclear can be done domestically in many places, and nuclear waste is not actually waste, we can recycle that too theoretically.
What we need is a ban on lobbying against nuclear, to decrease costs. France built them in the 70s and somehow despite technology increasing dramatically we now cant, its government created nonsense.
The theoretically is load bearing here. Also China themselves massively build their solar, so it being built using coal is not quite right. Also also other countries were able to build solar before so theoretically they could do so again if sufficiently subsidized.
Whats the lifetime of a nuclear plant in the first place, is it above proven current reserves?
Maybe by the time we run out then something else will be the hot new thing. As far as why countries dont produce solar its because of environmental regulations making it too costly, which is why the large majority of required material is refined in China, so runs into the same problem as nuclear.
For one, most remotelly modern coal plants can be repurposed for single core nuclear reactors. So it effectivelly removes the biggest hurdle of nuclear. The upfront cost.
Another reason is that spend nuclear fuel is close to 96% recyclable.
Thirdly the energy production is steady.
Fourth and most important thing. We need to get rid of the fossil fuels right now. Its too important thing to dilly dally with. It does not matter if its solar, wind, hydro, thermal or nuclear energy.
Unfortunately, if I remember right, most coal power plants are more radioactive than the minimum we allow for nuclear plants. While we could convert them, right now I don’t believe that is happening.
Okay, I have never heard of using coal plants for nuclear and found nothing online. Do you have some sources for me?
And yes, I get the rest, but I would prefer to not use nuclear, but given the current development, I’d prefer going full nuclear over whatever the fuck a lot of countries are doing right now.
Its mostly because the process inherently is just boiling water with resource x and making steam engine go brrr. Coal plants have the infrastructure for the energy generating and logistics allready there and the parts are allready wistanding the heat. Additional bonus is that while coal plant needs weekly refills nuclear plant could produce the same energy with only few refills a year.
Here is pretty comprehensive recearch made in 2022 by DOE It takes account many benefits and hurdles if the process and its not trying to sugar coat it. (Sadly current USA political situation is not intrested pursuing this any further)
Because the need for electricity will only grow the more electrification we do, and doing both is better then doing just one of the two. We need to max-out out production capacity for solar, wind and batteries anyway (and by production I mean combination of grid capacity and rate of expansion, material mining and refinement, labor, legislative bottleneck and capital availability). Anything more is definitionally better, and nuclear is a lot of way complementary with solar, wind, and batteries in materials, fuel, grid usage and operational constraint (namely it is dispatchable and can do load following).
The need for power maybe (not counting on that given the greater need caused by AI and the rapid industrialization of Asia and Africa), but the need for electricity will certainly not go down. While an electric car is more efficient, no electricity was used before to power the cars is going to replace.
Still I think going back to nuclear is not a great idea. It still relies on fishy countries and is not renewable, takes ages to build and harms the environment through the emitted heat especially in summer (and other problems).
That said, I still massively prefer it to coal and gas. Its not even remotely close.
True, but with known reserves and no material recycling we have 70 years of material at current rate. If we add undiscovered deposits we have more or less 200 years. If we add ocean deposits we have 60000 years. If we reprocess the uranium in breeder reactors (we have them already built in Russia, China, India) we can potentially arrive at 5 millions year of reserves. Given we are already discussing thorium rectors, this time frame makes uranium not a problem really.
But why do that if we have unlimited solar energy now and only need more panels, batteries and a way to recycle them both?
Solar relies on China who manufactures using coal, and puts us in the same predicament. It also requires storage, which also relies on China. Nuclear can be done domestically in many places, and nuclear waste is not actually waste, we can recycle that too theoretically.
What we need is a ban on lobbying against nuclear, to decrease costs. France built them in the 70s and somehow despite technology increasing dramatically we now cant, its government created nonsense.
The theoretically is load bearing here. Also China themselves massively build their solar, so it being built using coal is not quite right. Also also other countries were able to build solar before so theoretically they could do so again if sufficiently subsidized.
Whats the lifetime of a nuclear plant in the first place, is it above proven current reserves?
Maybe by the time we run out then something else will be the hot new thing. As far as why countries dont produce solar its because of environmental regulations making it too costly, which is why the large majority of required material is refined in China, so runs into the same problem as nuclear.
For one, most remotelly modern coal plants can be repurposed for single core nuclear reactors. So it effectivelly removes the biggest hurdle of nuclear. The upfront cost.
Another reason is that spend nuclear fuel is close to 96% recyclable.
Thirdly the energy production is steady.
Fourth and most important thing. We need to get rid of the fossil fuels right now. Its too important thing to dilly dally with. It does not matter if its solar, wind, hydro, thermal or nuclear energy.
Unfortunately, if I remember right, most coal power plants are more radioactive than the minimum we allow for nuclear plants. While we could convert them, right now I don’t believe that is happening.
Okay, I have never heard of using coal plants for nuclear and found nothing online. Do you have some sources for me?
And yes, I get the rest, but I would prefer to not use nuclear, but given the current development, I’d prefer going full nuclear over whatever the fuck a lot of countries are doing right now.
Its mostly because the process inherently is just boiling water with resource x and making steam engine go brrr. Coal plants have the infrastructure for the energy generating and logistics allready there and the parts are allready wistanding the heat. Additional bonus is that while coal plant needs weekly refills nuclear plant could produce the same energy with only few refills a year.
Here is pretty comprehensive recearch made in 2022 by DOE It takes account many benefits and hurdles if the process and its not trying to sugar coat it. (Sadly current USA political situation is not intrested pursuing this any further)
Here is good paper that studies the field wider but also aknowledges the potential in C2N conversion
Because the need for electricity will only grow the more electrification we do, and doing both is better then doing just one of the two. We need to max-out out production capacity for solar, wind and batteries anyway (and by production I mean combination of grid capacity and rate of expansion, material mining and refinement, labor, legislative bottleneck and capital availability). Anything more is definitionally better, and nuclear is a lot of way complementary with solar, wind, and batteries in materials, fuel, grid usage and operational constraint (namely it is dispatchable and can do load following).
The need for power will actually shrink with growing electrification, since a lot of those technologies are more energy efficient.
The need for power maybe (not counting on that given the greater need caused by AI and the rapid industrialization of Asia and Africa), but the need for electricity will certainly not go down. While an electric car is more efficient, no electricity was used before to power the cars is going to replace.
Okay. That is true.
Still I think going back to nuclear is not a great idea. It still relies on fishy countries and is not renewable, takes ages to build and harms the environment through the emitted heat especially in summer (and other problems).
That said, I still massively prefer it to coal and gas. Its not even remotely close.